View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on the Flames CalgaryNext presentation? (select multiple)
|
Get digging, I love it all!
|
  
|
259 |
37.27% |
Too much tax money
|
  
|
125 |
17.99% |
Too much ticket tax
|
  
|
54 |
7.77% |
Need more parking
|
  
|
130 |
18.71% |
I need more details, can't say at this time
|
  
|
200 |
28.78% |
The city owns it? Great deal for Calgary
|
  
|
110 |
15.83% |
Need to clean up this area anyway, its embarassing
|
  
|
179 |
25.76% |
Needs a retractable roof
|
  
|
89 |
12.81% |
Great idea but don't think it will fly with stake holders
|
  
|
69 |
9.93% |
Why did it take 2 years to come up with this?
|
  
|
161 |
23.17% |
Curious to see the city's response
|
  
|
194 |
27.91% |
08-18-2015, 10:45 PM
|
#1721
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)
ahhh yes. Like the butterdome (go Golden Bears!)
|
mmmm sweet, sweet butter...
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 10:51 PM
|
#1722
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 103 104END 106 109 111 117 122 202 203 207 208 216 217 219 221 222 224 225 313 317 HC G
|
I like the general idea of what was done today. As KK said, the city and province were at an impasse on the land and this should be the catalyst to get things going. This is the only spot to do this. The Flames cant secure that much land from the Stampede and anywhere else would be a death sentence. I do hope however that this is not the final design and that is being reserved for later once the land is re-mediated and more details are finalized, see Bunk's post for the design concerns. I also believe that $200M is not the final number from the Flames. I think that there will be push back from tax payers and the City/Province and the Flames may have to settle for $300M+ and maybe even $300M for the ticket tax.
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 10:55 PM
|
#1723
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
No, but I'm not naive enough to think a salesmen won't deliver his pitch in a way that benefits him so I buy his product. I don't get insulted when the last realtor I dealt with fudged or sweetened up his words to get the deal done.
That's business, that's life son. Need to toughen up a little if a salesmen selling insults you.
|
As I already said you're taking the word too litterally. If I said "I can't believe he thought people would eat that up" would that have been better for you or would you still be trying to create an issue? I'm gonna assume the later because you like to argue about nothing more than a woman. There's a difference between "sweetening" up the words and straight out lieing. Do you think this arena makes us a world class city? That's quite the spin but if so explain why. If not then I don't see why your so caught up with me finding it a "bit insulting." Meaning did he actually think people would believe that? So ya I guess either discuss the actual topic (the pitch) or continue giving advice like your my mother. Self appointed CP security guard and now life coach lol.
Last edited by Hackey; 08-18-2015 at 10:58 PM.
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 10:56 PM
|
#1724
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: CGY
|
I like the while concept of it but it just seems that they are trying to hold too much things all under one facility. I hope there's a better way this is all designed when final.
__________________
Sam "Beard" Bennett
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:00 PM
|
#1725
|
Retired
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Ticket Tax
It was a massive mistake in my opinion to not suggest the owners were going to backstop the loan for the ticket tax. I suppose we would assume the City would finance the ticket tax. I believe the user pay component is sound, it should absolutely be backstopped by the owners, not the City. If it is planned to be backstopped by the owners, really bad not to say that today with utmost clarity.
|
I enjoyed reading your post, can I ask a question related to this and the CRL?
I wonder in this proposal who gets the benefit of developing the surrounding areas. For example, to use our friends to the north as an example, the cost of the team's investment was offset by the owner using the increased value in the surrounding lands and related development.
Is there anything like this going on in the CS&E proposal that you can comment on? Are there specific interests which stand to benefit?
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:05 PM
|
#1726
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Not impressed if this is the final design,
it looks like a grade 5 art class project.

|
From an angle, fast food containers. From above, a big footprint?
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:09 PM
|
#1727
|
Draft Pick
|
Interesting. When I had first heard the fieldhouse would be incorporated I thought it would be its own distinct entity. I think the rolling bleachers are a bit 'high school' for a professional sports facility and the atmosphere of the stadium for a CFL game might be a bit lacking.
Basically they're asking for the 200M fieldhouse money to put a roof on the stadium. I'm hard pressed to think that everybody wouldn't be better off with the Flames doing the 20,000 rink, the Stamps doing an attached roofless outdoor 30,000 stadium (expandable to 50,000) and then leveling McMahon and putting the fieldhouse right there.
Although metal rolling bleachers and an enclosed roof could make for a very impressive amount of noise if the lower bowl crowd starts "stamping" their feet. (pun completely intended).
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:11 PM
|
#1728
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
As I already said you're taking the word too litterally. If I said "I can't believe he thought people would eat that up" would that have been better for you or would you still be trying to create an issue? I'm gonna assume the later because you like to argue about nothing more than a woman. There's a difference between "sweetening" up the words and straight out lieing. Do you think this arena makes us a world class city? That's quite the spin but if so explain why. If not then I don't see why your so caught up with me finding it a "bit insulting." Meaning did he actually think people would believe that? So ya I guess either discuss the actual topic (the pitch) or continue giving advice like your my mother. Self appointed CP security guard and now life coach lol.
|
One out of three ain't bad I guess. Student shows marked improvement.
Quote:
I'm gonna assume the later because you like to argue about nothing more than a woman.
|
Bonus points for the sexist remark!
The idea of world class city is something just thrown around, I wouldn't get too upset or emotional about it. Having top notch facilities like this project help move us in the right direction though. It's a potential important project along with the Green Line LRT and East Village. I'm not overly concerned with a President and CEO using platitudes to define them either, that's all sorts of normal.
I'll also have you know Tinordi deputized me years ago. I don't do anything without the Sheriff's knowledge.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:11 PM
|
#1729
|
Franchise Player
|
have been extremely busy so have not read all the details, so excuse dumb questions...
1) How does the funding model for this compare to the oilers new building?
2) Why does this have to tie into both a hockey arena and football field in-one ?
I actually don't like the design all that much. Furthermore, why is the city's pro sports arena(s) going to also be used for day to day amateur sports?
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:25 PM
|
#1730
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, Canada
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyT
MSG is going no where and I don't see how this argument is valid or what this argument even is. Are you suggesting the flames put this 900 million into the saddledome instead?
|
Long term the Dome will need be replaced with a newer facility, no doubt about that.
The Flames ownership group and NHL have said the Dome is not suitable for today's NHL "fan experience and economics" I agree, to a certain point for the foreseeable future. The Flames could spend millions to upgrade the facility in order to improve economics and the fan experience. I agree that it probably doesn't make sense for this to occur from the Flames perspective but the argument is the fan experience and economics.
Outside of a taxpayer funded renovation in 1994 the Flames haven't put big dollars into the facility. A lack of investment has caused a subpar experience which causes a need for a newer facility.
Like I said in an earlier post the Flames could do minor renos to improve the facility marginally but why bother?? The taxpayers will help foot a bill for a newer building to improve the economics for the team, the owners and the entertainment business of Calgary Sports and Entertainment.
In the end the building will need to be replaced, just that we might be able to extend the life a little longer with a little bit of cash.
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:27 PM
|
#1731
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockey.modern
Overview:
Retractable Seating for CFL:

|
These arent the final plans but the whole thing seems like a bad idea.
-The pathway shadow bylaw forces an awkward stadium design, where one sideline stand is ~20 rows and the other is ~100.
-The south-NW line has the majority of users and they will either have to switch trains or walk over a kilometer.
-Tailgaters are SOL
-It's surrounded by freeways on three sides. Not a huge deal IF they build walkways and underpasses. But the whole location is isolated by the river, CPR/C-train tracks, and Crowchild. Way off the beaten path. I guess the Saddledome is too though.
I guess I was expecting something amazing, and this just isnt.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Magnum PEI For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:29 PM
|
#1732
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Overall District Design
This is where I start to have issues
First, the real point of having an arena or stadium "district" like this is to use the activity of the sporting facility to spin off other complementary uses that create a destination and gathering place in the city. KK said he didn't want a 17th avenue type thing, that's fine, but this seems to lack any sort of real place associated with the stadium and arena.
The main entry point is via Sunalta LRT station. It seems to just take people directly from the platform, onto a bridge and right inside to the stadium/arena. The thing that gets me excited about places like LA Live or Edmonton Arena district is that there is a sense of arrival in a vibrant public square with restaurants and bars and an exciting vibe. There is none of this here.
The arena/and stadium itself the way it's situated and the fact that Bow Trail is not realigned at all makes the facility isolated and isolating. The residential/commercial and other associated development is almost completely detached from the stadium/arena itself. It's completely unclear how people living in this area could even access the Sunalta LRT - there is no apparent way to actually cross Bow Trail!
The site's greatest asset, the Bow River frontage is still largely cut off and orphaned by virtue of a freeway style road that is west-bound Bow Trail. Despite cost, it is a massive mistake to leave the road configuration how it currently is. Ken King himself called it less than ideal. It is far worse than that, it's brutal. The site also sort of orphans the south side of 9th Avenue, leaving a difficult to develop roughly 60ft deep parcel along the whole stretch. If a CRL is used, they will need to squeeze every inch of developable land (and likely more) to make it pencil out financially (more on this below).
|
Good post, but this is the part that really resonates with my thoughts. I was hoping for more of a LA Live vibe, and the current vision doesn't even resemble it at all. The lack of interaction with the river, and train station leaves a lot to be desired. I hope that as this project moves forward, that the corridor from the train station to the river, and the riverfront itself is given real attention to make this area have more of a district vibe that has life outside of game times.
This is a concept, so it's a start. There's definitely room for improvement, to make this project, and the west village live up to it's true potential. After all, this is about being a world class city right?
Last edited by Joborule; 08-18-2015 at 11:33 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:30 PM
|
#1733
|
Franchise Player
|
just watched global news and sportcenter
"stadium for flames and stampeders"
no mention of anything else...they really love to play up the whole public money for professional athletes
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:37 PM
|
#1734
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
One out of three ain't bad I guess. Student shows marked improvement.
Bonus points for the sexist remark!
The idea of world class city is something just thrown around, I wouldn't get too upset or emotional about it. Having top notch facilities like this project help move us in the right direction though. It's a potential important project along with the Green Line LRT and East Village. I'm not overly concerned with a President and CEO using platitudes to define them either, that's all sorts of normal.
I'll also have you know Tinordi deputized me years ago. I don't do anything without the Sheriff's knowledge.
|
Not overly concerned with platitudes yet made such a big deal over "bit insulting." Quick google search: a bit - somewhat, to an extent. Obviously you tried to make it more than it was to create an issue. From now on just PM me and will leave the thread to discussing the topic.
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:41 PM
|
#1735
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Well he's right about the part that we're not a world class city and won't be because of this project like they were trying to sell. It's a great city with a lot of amazing attributes but that pitch was a bit insulting. I rather someone just be honest in their pitch than try to sell me something that isn't there. Felt like Lyle Lanley trying to sell us on the Monorail.
|
I think Calgary is a lot closer to that goal than perhaps you're giving us credit for. We boast on of the highest standards of living in the world. And I think having this stadium/arena will boost that, and be a catalyst to help develop the WV area.
Plus, when you consider Winsport is already the home of Hockey Canada, adding a world class facility could make us a major Hockey hub. We may even get squeezed into sportcentre after all leafs highlights, lowlights, rumours, trades, speculation, sound bites, etc.
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:43 PM
|
#1736
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle, WA/Scottsdale, AZ
|
Does anyone else think that 18,000 for the rink is a bit on the small side?
|
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:44 PM
|
#1737
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
A long, insightful post.
|
A+ Bunk. A+.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:52 PM
|
#1738
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
No. No they won't. Ownership pays $200MM. Users pay $250MM. New, currently unrealised taxes pay $240MM. City contributes already earmarked $200MM.
|
I realize we are all going around and around here, but this a real spin (no pun intended). The spin we were given by King, but still spin.
It's going to cost at least 890 million dollars (and no doubt more if this actually happens), and the commitment from the Flames/Stamps is 200 million. All the other money comes from someone other than the Flames.
You can call it unrealized taxes, "earmarked" money, or whatever, but ultimately the main purpose of this is to build a new rink for the Flames and a football stadium for the Stamps, and they have offered to pay for ~20% of it.
The "user tax" is still a tax on the citizens who want to go to an event in a city-owned building. It's called a tax, after all. It's not a freebie.
200 million bucks seems awful steep for a single field for public use (when the pro sports team isn't using it) and a few other facilities (wherever they would go in there).
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 08-18-2015 at 11:55 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:52 PM
|
#1739
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Anyone else notice this guy?
This render has been years in the making! Haha
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-18-2015, 11:55 PM
|
#1740
|
Jordan!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chandler, AZ
|
Why does a football stadium need to be attached to a hockey arena? Pointless...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 AM.
|
|